At EIKE distinguished German physicist and climate expert Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke writes how we are witnessing a notable paradigm shift in climate research today: the resurrection of medieval scholasticism. In plain language: the science of the Dark Ages.
German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke says today’s climate science paradigm has shifted to a “medieval scholasticism” and is a real threat to science and society as a whole. Photo: EIKE.
Scholasticism dominated medieval western Europe and was based on the writings of the Church Fathers, with strict adherence to traditional doctrines. To say the least, it was effective in stifling enlightenment.
The breakthrough from this crusty, dogmatic approach, Lüdecke writes, came with Galileo, who gave highest priority to systematic and numerical measurement, which today remains the standard method of science. With Galileo’s approach hypotheses or theories that are not confirmed by measurements get discarded and are no longer pursued. The method led to giant leaps and bounds in technology, medicine and science, from which today humanity is benefitting immensely.
Richard Richard Feynman summarized Galileo’s approach beautifully, saying that if a hypothesis disagrees with observations, then it’s wrong.
This fundamental approach, the Lüdecke writes, is no longer in use in climate science and, what is worse, the old medieval scholastic method is even now dangerously invading other fields of science.
According to Lüdecke, the key question today: Is the climate change witnessed since 1850 unusual, and thus due to man, or is it well within the range of natural variability the planet has seen throughout its history? The German physicist says a hypothesis’s burden of proof is clearly not on its skeptics, but on the one proposing the hypothesis. He writes:
It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it. One can occupy himself with a hypothesis, put it at the center of his research, and even have complete faith in it. However one cannot use it as a basis for taking rational action without first having confirmed measurements. In summary: If we cannot observe any unusual climate activity since 1850 compared to the times before that, then we have no choice but to assume natural climate change.”
In order to assume there has been “unusual activity”, Lüdecke says, it would be necessary to have comprehensive data about the oceans before 1850. This doesn’t exist, and so a comparison is not possible. Lüdecke reminds: “It is mandatory to prove that the climate data since 1850 are indeed unusual when compared to the period before that.” A comparison is already very difficult to do with atmospheric temperatures. With ocean data: “Who today can tell us what temperature distributions the oceans had back during the Medieval Warm Period?” Lüdecke writes Assuming that today is unusual without being able to compare it to anything from the past is not science at all, he tells us.
When it comes to extreme weather events, there are plenty of paintings and recorded accounts showing that they too existed earlier on, and that today’s events are nothing new, Lüdecke writes. Even the IPCC has reached that conclusion. The German climatologist puts the assumptions of more future extreme weather events in the category of “crystal balls” and not modern science.
Prof. Lüdecke also blasts the over-emphasis on climate models, writing that “the models fail already for the past” and that they cannot even predict the next El Nino correctly or the missing tropospheric hot spot. He writes:
Using the R. Feynman yardstick these climate models are not only inaccurate or a bit false; they are totally false. […] Anyone selling climate forecasts from climate models as scientific is using a medieval paradigm. He is conducting moral sciences instead of physics.”
Ouch. Lüdecke also then calls the alliance between the IPCC and policymaking “dubious” and one that was set up with the target of reaching an already predetermined result. He calls the manner in which policymaking is moving ahead “embellished nonsense”.
In his conclusion the German professor advises those engaged in a discussion with alarmists, or listening to a presenation by an alarmist, to not go easy on them. There are three points, he advises:
1. The modern science paradigm of priority on measurement over theoretical model remains valid. The climate alarmist must prove that his hypothsies is confirmed by observations and measurements. It is not up to you to prove his hypothesis is false.
2. When the climate alarmists “starts beating around the bush” insists he name a peer-reviewed paper that proves, based on measurements, that the climate change since 1850 is unprecedented compared to earlier times (there isn’t any).
3. Don’t let yourself be drawn into the discussion over climate models. That the models are unable to describe the climate development means they are false, as to point no. 1.”
The distinguished professor ends by blasting climate policymakers, warning they are bordering on “criminal activity” in their conscious misuse of science to formulate policy:
We are allowing hundreds of thousands of people in the poorest developing countries to starve in order to be able to finance climate protection and energy transformation that are not based on today’s valid science paradigm. That is not only idiotic, but also borders on criminal activity by the politically responsible persons.”